All students should continue with some form of mathematics post 16. Just read the **report** from the Post-16 Smith **review** and that should convince you.

But, if you don’t already agree/need convincing/haven’t the time to read the Smith **report**/want to know what ‘mathematics’ means here, then read on.

Just to be clear: my focus here is on students who have passed their GCSE Mathematics immediately after the end of year 11. Many other areas are covered by the Smith **report** for those in Post-16 education where ‘mathematics’ is compulsory anyway: GCSE resits for those that failed to pass it in year 11, Functional Skills for whom GCSE isn’t appropriate, and **T levels** for those on a **Technical Education pathway**.

For far too long England (and the rest of the UK) has been an outlier compared with ‘competitor economies’ for the percentage of students continuing with mathematics post-16, and not in a good way - England remains unusual among advanced countries in that the study of mathematics is not universal for all students beyond age 16.

Almost three quarters of students with a pass in GCSE Mathematics at age 16 choose not to study mathematics beyond this level. Most of these students continue at school or college with A levels (or other level 3 qualifications), and then head off to university to study for degrees, most of which have significant mathematical, statistical or quantitative elements.

Ever since an influential **report** highlighted how out of step England/UK was, considerable activity has been taking place on this front by **ACME** and **others**, but more importantly by **Department for Education (DfE)**.

This culminated recently with the HMT and DfE initiating a **review** by Professor Sir Adrian Smith, FRS announced in the March 2016 Budget to consider:

*‘the case for and feasibility of all students continuing some form of mathematics until 18’, with ‘mathematics being interpreted in its broadest sense, including quantitative skills, statistics and data analysis’*

The **review** was prompted by:

*‘the increasing importance of mathematical and quantitative skills to the future workforce’*

which is clearly related to the issue highlighted above of low levels of participation in mathematics post-16.

The Government backed this up with the publication of their **Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future**, including:

*'**We are seeing growth in the new core maths qualifications introduced in 2014, which are designed to prepare students for the mathematical demands of university study, employment and life. These have been endorsed by a large number of universities, including many in the Russell Group.*

*Building on Sir Adrian Smith’s recommendation to make core maths available to all students on level 3 pathways, we will incentivise education institutions to offer maths by providing a £600 premium to existing per pupil funding rates for each additional student who takes core maths. This will help education providers to support more students aged 16 and over to study maths.'*

Sir Adrian’s long-awaited **report** was published in July 2017 and one which I very much welcome. It is the most comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of 16-18 mathematics in England one could imagine. The thorough investigation has led to Sir Adrian to make 18 clear, strong and wide-ranging recommendations.

Sir Adrian’s overall conclusion is that:

*‘we do not yet have the appropriate range of pathways available or the capacity to deliver the required volume and range of teaching for all to continue studying mathematics post 16’*

but he

*‘would hope that if we were able to move forward over the next few years with many of the recommendations in this report, we might realistically aspire to such a vision within a decade.’*

The case for all students continuing mathematics to 18 couldn’t be clearer – just read the **report**!

The DfE agree, which is reassuring, if unsurprising, with Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Standards, saying in his **response** to the report that the review had made a:

*’strong case for raising participation in post-16 mathematics and improving both basic and advanced maths skills’*

and **the current DfE Study Guide** sets out the government’s policy on 16 to 19 study programmes making clear the importance of students continuing with mathematics post 16:

*' Level 3 mathematics qualificationsThe government has recently published Professor Sir Adrian Smith’s review of post-16 mathematics.*

*Despite recent progress, participation in mathematics post-16 remains low in comparison to many other countries. There is a strong case that mathematical and quantitative skills are important for students’ future study and career. Higher levels of achievement in mathematics are associated with higher earnings for individuals and many employers are looking for applicants with advanced mathematical and quantitative skills.*

*To improve the life chances of students we would therefore like to see providers offering a range of level 3 mathematics qualifications and more students participating post-16.*

*As well as new reformed AS and A levels in mathematics, statistics and further mathematics; awarding organisations have introduced new ‘core maths’ qualifications at level 3 for students not taking A and AS levels in mathematics. The focus of core maths qualifications is on problem solving, reasoning and the practical application of mathematics and statistics. These new qualifications have been designed with the support and help of employers and universities to suit students with a range of pass grades at GCSE maths and provide them with the quantitative skills now needed in a wide range of jobs. We would encourage all providers to offer these new qualifications for their students.'*

The review has 18 recommendations which can be found on pages 7-14 in the **report**.

The first two that need immediate action are:

*'The DfE should*:

*seek to ensure that schools and colleges are able to offer all students on academic routes and potentially students on other level 3 programmes access to a Core Maths qualification*

*reconsider the institutional incentives and disincentives arising from the 16-19 funding model for schools and colleges, with a view to removing disincentives for mathematics provision’ (AS and A level Further Mathematics within four/five A level programmes and Core Maths)'*

The Government’s **response** includes establishing a new Level 3 Maths Support Programme (L3MSP) which ‘will build on the momentum created by the Further Mathematics and Core Maths Support Programmes’.

There is absolutely no doubt that Government is fully behind more students continuing studying mathematics to 18, and has provided two clear pathways for those with a GCSE pass: **AS and A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics** and **Core Maths**:

**AS/A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics:**

The significant **reforms in AS and A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics**, led by leading** **universities, will also provide for much** **better** **preparation** **for** **undergraduate** **study.

Core Maths refers to a set of new level 3 qualifications designed to provide opportunities for students who achieved a pass in GCSE Mathematics (but who are not taking AS/A level Mathematics) to continue with the subject. These qualifications are intended to complement a range of academic and technical programmes, designed to strengthen and build on students’ existing skills, with a focus on using and applying mathematics and statistics, particularly in real life scenarios, and with a strong emphasis on contextualised problem-solving.

So, *mathematics for all to 18* doesn’t mean AS/A level mathematics – it means mathematics appropriate to their needs, which for the many with a GCSE pass in Mathematics will mean Core Maths.

Two key recommendations concern negative attitudes to mathematics and the importance of mathematics to a wide range of careers. Only by tackling these will all students willingly studying mathematics to 18 - students will opt to take mathematics so long as it is of clear benefit to them, i.e. it is accessible and relevant.

Compulsion isn’t the answer – getting students’ ‘buy-in’ is, though, so that ‘compulsion’ then becomes a redundant notion anyway.

Finally, the longer-term goals are clear from the **report’s** final recommendation on the long-term implications of the rise of data science for education and training in mathematics and quantitative skills.

In the meantime, with a cast-iron case already made for all students to continue mathematics to 18, we now all need to crack on and make it happen!

For further details see:

**Glaister, P. (2017)***Smith review of post 16 mathematics.*Mathematics Today, 53, pp. 201-204. ISSN 1361-2042.**Glaister, P.****and Rycroft-Smith, L. (2017)***Pathways, transitions and networks.*Mathematics Today, 53, pp. 213-215. ISSN 1361-2042.**Glaister, P. (2017) Should all students continue studying mathematics to 18? (The 2017 Smith Review)**